Most proteins or small molecules are not known to specifically bind to nucleic acids. The known protein exceptions are those regulatory proteins such as repressors, polymerases, activators and the like which function in a living cell to bring about the transfer of genetic information encoded in the nucleic acids into cellular structures and the replication of the genetic material. Furthermore, small molecules such as GTP bind to some intron RNAs.
Living matter has evolved to limit the function of nucleic acids to a largely informational role. The Central Dogma, as postulated by Crick, both originally and in expanded form, proposes that nucleic acids (either RNA or DNA) can serve as templates for the synthesis of other nucleic acids through replicative processes that “read” the information in a template nucleic acid and thus yield complementary nucleic acids. All of the experimental paradigms for genetics and gene expression depend on these properties of nucleic acids: in essence, double-stranded nucleic acids are informationally redundant because of the chemical concept of base pairs and because replicative processes are able to use that base pairing in a relatively error-free manner.
The individual components of proteins, the twenty natural amino acids, possess sufficient chemical differences and activities to provide an enormous breadth of activities for both binding and catalysis. Nucleic acids, however, are thought to have narrower chemical possibilities than proteins, but to have an informational role that allows genetic information to be passed from virus to virus, cell to cell, and organism to organism. In this context nucleic acid components, the nucleotides, must possess only pairs of surfaces that allow informational redundancy within a Watson-Crick base pair. Nucleic acid components need not possess chemical differences and activities sufficient for either a wide range of binding or catalysis.
However, some nucleic acids found in nature do participate in binding to certain target molecules and even a few instances of catalysis have been reported. The range of activities of this kind is narrow compared to proteins and more specifically antibodies. For example, where nucleic acids are known to bind to some protein targets with high affinity and specificity, the binding depends on the exact sequences of nucleotides that comprise the DNA or RNA ligand. Thus, short double-stranded DNA sequences are known to bind to target proteins that repress or activate transcription in both prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Other short double-stranded DNA sequences are known to bind to restriction endonucleases, protein targets that can be selected with high affinity and specificity. Other short DNA sequences serve as centromeres and telomeres on chromosomes, presumably by creating ligands for the binding of specific proteins that participate in chromosome mechanics. Thus, double-stranded DNA has a well-known capacity to bind within the nooks and crannies of target proteins whose functions are directed to DNA binding. Single-stranded DNA can also bind to some proteins with high affinity and specificity, although the number of examples is rather smaller. From the known examples of double-stranded DNA binding proteins, it has become possible to describe the binding interactions as involving various protein motifs projecting amino acid side chains into the major groove of B form double-stranded DNA, providing the sequence inspection that allows specificity.
Double-stranded RNA occasionally serves as a ligand for certain proteins, for example, the endonuclease RNase III from E. coli. There are more known instances of target proteins that bind to single-stranded RNA ligands, although in these cases the single-stranded RNA often forms a complex three-dimensional shape that includes local regions of intramolecular double-strandedness. The amino-acyl tRNA synthetases bind tightly to tRNA molecules with high specificity. A short region within the genomes of RNA viruses binds tightly and with high specificity to the viral coat proteins. A short sequence of RNA binds to the bacteriophage T4-encoded DNA polymerase, again with high affinity and specificity. Thus, it is possible to find RNA and DNA ligands, either double- or single-stranded, serving as binding partners for specific protein targets. Most known DNA binding proteins bind specifically to double-stranded DNA, while most RNA binding proteins recognize single-stranded RNA. This statistical bias in the literature no doubt reflects the present biosphere's statistical predisposition to use DNA as a double-stranded genome and RNA as a single-stranded entity in the roles RNA plays beyond serving as a genome. Chemically there is no strong reason to dismiss single-stranded DNA as a fully able partner for specific protein interactions.
RNA and DNA have also been found to bind to smaller target molecules. Double-stranded DNA binds to various antibiotics, such as actinomycin D. A specific single-stranded RNA binds to the antibiotic thiostreptone; specific RNA sequences and structures probably bind to certain other antibiotics, especially those whose functions is to inactivate ribosomes in a target organism. A family of evolutionary related RNAs binds with specificity and decent affinity to nucleotides and nucleosides (Bass and Cech (1984) Nature 308:820-826) as well as to one of the twenty amino acids (Yarus (1988) Science 240:1751-1758). Catalytic RNAs are now known as well, although these molecules perform over a narrow range of chemical possibilities, which are thus far related largely to phosphodiester transfer reactions and hydrolysis of nucleic acids.
Despite these known instances, the great majority of proteins and other cellular components are thought not to bind to nucleic acids under physiological conditions and such binding as may be observed is non-specific. Either the capacity of nucleic acids to bind other compounds is limited to the relatively few instances enumerated above, or the chemical repertoire of the nucleic acids for specific binding is avoided (selected against) in the structures that occur naturally. The present invention is premised on the inventors' fundamental insight that nucleic acids as chemical compounds can form a virtually limitless array of shapes, sizes and configurations, and are capable of a far broader repertoire of binding and catalytic functions than those displayed in biological systems.
The chemical interactions have been explored in cases of certain known instances of protein-nucleic acid binding. For example, the size and sequence of the RNA site of bacteriophage R17 coat protein binding has been identified by Uhlenbeck and coworkers. The minimal natural RNA binding site (21 bases long) for the R17 coat protein was determined by subjecting variable-sized labeled fragments of the mRNA to nitrocellulose filter binding assays in which protein-RNA fragment complexes remain bound to the filter (Carey et al. (1983) Biochemistry 22:2601). A number of sequence variants of the minimal R17 coat protein binding site were created in vitro in order to determine the contributions of individual nucleic acids to protein binding (Uhlenbeck et al. (1983) J. Biomol. Structure & Dynamics 1:539; Romaniuk et al. (1987) Biochemistry 26:1563). It was found that the maintenance of the hairpin loop structure of the binding site was essential for protein binding but, in addition, that nucleotide substitutions at most of the single-stranded residues in the binding site, including a bulged nucleotide in the hairpin stem, significantly affected binding. In similar studies, the binding of bacteriophage Qβ coat protein to its translational operator was examined (Witherell and Uhlenbeck (1989) Biochemistry 28:71). The Qβ coat protein RNA binding site was found to be similar to that of RI 7 in size, and in predicted secondary structure, in that it comprised about 20 bases with an 8 base pair hairpin structure which included a bulged nucleotide and a 3 base loop. In contrast to the R17 coat protein binding site, only one of the single-stranded residues of the loop is essential for binding and the presence of the bulged nucleotide is not required. The protein-RNA binding interactions involved in translational regulation display significant specificity.
Nucleic acids are known to form secondary and tertiary structures in solution. The double-stranded forms of DNA include the so-called B double-helical form, Z-DNA and superhelical twists (Rich et al. (1984) Ann. Rev. Biochem. 53:791-846). Single-stranded RNA forms localized regions of secondary structure such as hairpin loops and pseudoknot structures (Schimmel (1989) Cell 58:9-12). However, little is known concerning the effects of unpaired loop nucleotides on stability of loop structure, kinetics of formation and denaturation, thermodynamics, and almost nothing is known of tertiary structures and three dimensional shape, nor of the kinetics and thermodynamics of tertiary folding in nucleic acids (Tuerk et al. (1988) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 85:1364-1368).
A type of in vitro evolution was reported in replication of the RNA bacteriophage Qβ. (See Mills et al. (1967) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci USA 58:217-224; Levisohn and Spiegelman (1968) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 60:866-872; Levisohn and Spiegelman (1969) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 63:805-811; Saffhill et al. (1970) J. Mol. Biol. 51:531-539; Kacian et al. (1972) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 69:3038-3042; Mills et al. (1973) Science 180:916-927). The phage RNA serves as a poly-cistronic messenger RNA directing translation of phage-specific proteins and also as a template for its own replication catalyzed by Qβ RNA replicase. This RNA replicase was shown to be highly specific for its own RNA templates. During the course of cycles of replication in vitro small variant RNAs were isolated which were also replicated by Qβ replicase. Minor alterations in the conditions under which cycles of replication were performed were found to result in the accumulation of different RNAs, presumably because their replication was favored under the altered conditions. In these experiments, the selected RNA had to be bound efficiently by the replicase to initiate replication and had to serve as a kinetically favored template during elongation of RNA. Kramer et al. (1974) J. Mol. Biol. 89:719 reported the isolation of a mutant RNA template of Qβ replicase, the replication of which was more resistant to inhibition by ethidium bromide than the natural template. It was suggested that this mutant was not present in the initial RNA population but was generated by sequential mutation during cycles of in vitro replication with Qβ replicase. The only source of variation during selection was the intrinsic error rate during elongation by Qβ replicase. In these studies what was termed “selection” occurred by preferential amplification of one or more of a limited number of spontaneous variants of an initially homogenous RNA sequence. There was no selection of a desired result, only that which was intrinsic to the mode of action of Qβ replicase.
Joyce and Robertson reported a method for identifying RNA which specifically cleave single-stranded DNA (Joyce (1989) in RNA: Catalysis, Splicing Evolution, Belfort and Shub (eds.), Elsevier, Amsterdam pp. 83-87; Robertson and Joyce (1990) Nature 344:467). The selection for catalytic activity was based on the ability of the ribozyme to catalyze the cleavage of a substrate ssRNA or DNA at a specific position and transfer the 3′-end of the substrate to the 3′-end of the ribozyme. The product of the desired reaction was selected by using an oligodeoxynucleotide primer which could bind only to the completed product across the junction formed by the catalytic reaction and allowed selective reverse transcription of the ribozyme sequence. The selected catalytic sequences were amplified by attachment of the promoter of T7 RNA polymerase to the 3′-end of the cDNA, followed by transcription to RNA. The method was employed to identify from a small number of ribozyme variants, the variant that was most reactive for cleavage of a selected substrate.
The prior art has not taught or suggested more than a limited range of chemical functions for nucleic acids in their interactions with other substances: as targets for proteins evolved to bind certain specific oligonucleotide sequences; and more recently, as catalysts with a limited range of activities. Prior “selection” experiments have been limited to a narrow range of variants of a previously described function. Now, for the first time, it will be understood that the nucleic acids are capable of a vastly broad range of functions and the methodology for realizing that capability is disclosed herein.
U.S. patent application Ser. No. 07/536,428 filed Jun. 11, 1990, entitled “Systematic Evolution of Ligands by Exponential Enrichment,” now abandoned and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 07/714,131 filed Jun. 10, 1991 entitled “Nucleic Acid Ligands,” now U.S. Pat. No. 5,475,096 (see also WO 91/19813) describe a fundamentally novel method for making a nucleic acid ligand for any desired target. Each of these applications, collectively referred to herein as the SELEX Patent Applications, is specifically incorporated herein by reference.
The method of the SELEX Patent Applications is based on the unique insight that nucleic acids have sufficient capacity for forming a variety of two- and three-dimensional structures and sufficient chemical versatility available within their monomers to act as ligands (form specific: binding pairs) with virtually any chemical compound, whether large or small in size.
The method involves selection from a mixture of candidates and step-wise iterations of structural improvement, using the same general selection theme, to achieve virtually any desired criterion of binding affinity and selectivity. Starting from a mixture of nucleic acids, preferably comprising a segment of randomized sequence, the method, termed SELEX herein, includes steps of contacting the mixture with the target under conditions favorable for binding, partitioning unbound nucleic acids from those nucleic acids which have bound to target molecules, dissociating the nucleic acid-target pairs, amplifying the nucleic acids dissociated from the nucleic acid-target pairs to yield a ligand-enriched mixture of nucleic acids, then reiterating the steps of binding, partitioning, dissociating and amplifying through as many cycles as desired.
While not bound by a theory of preparation, SELEX is based on the inventors' insight that within a nucleic acid mixture containing a large number of possible sequences and structures there is a wide range of binding affinities for a given target. A nucleic acid mixture comprising, for example a 20 nucleotide randomized segment can have 420 candidate possibilities. Those which have the higher affinity constants for the target are most likely to bind. After partitioning, dissociation and amplification, a second nucleic acid mixture is generated, enriched for the higher binding affinity candidates. Additional rounds of selection progressively favor the best ligands until the resulting nucleic acid mixture is predominantly composed of only one or a few sequences. These can then be cloned, sequenced and individually tested for binding affinity as pure ligands.
Cycles of selection and amplification are repeated until a desired goal is achieved. In the most general case, selection/amplification is continued until no significant improvement in binding strength is achieved on repetition of the cycle. The method may be used to sample as many as about 1018 different nucleic acid species. The nucleic acids of the test mixture preferably include a randomized sequence portion as well as conserved sequences necessary for efficient amplification. Nucleic acid sequence variants can be produced in a number of ways including synthesis of randomized nucleic acid sequences and size selection from randomly cleaved cellular nucleic acids. The variable sequence portion may contain fully or partially random sequence; it may also contain subportions of conserved sequence incorporated with randomized sequence. Sequence variation in test nucleic acids can be introduced or increased by mutagenesis before or during the selection/amplification iterations.
In one embodiment of the method of the SELEX Patent Applications, the selection process is so efficient at isolating those nucleic acid ligands that bind most strongly to the selected target, that only one cycle of selection and amplification is required. Such an efficient selection may occur, for example, in a chromatographic-type process wherein the ability of nucleic acids to associate with targets bound on a column operates in such a manner that the column is sufficiently able to allow separation and isolation of the highest affinity nucleic acid ligands.
In many cases, it is not necessarily desirable to perform the iterative steps of SELEX until a single nucleic acid ligand is identified. The target-specific nucleic acid ligand solution may include a family of nucleic acid structures or motifs that have a number of conserved sequences and a number of sequences which can be substituted or added without significantly effecting the affinity of the nucleic acid ligands to the target. By terminating the SELEX process prior to completion, it is possible to determine the sequence of a number of members of the nucleic acid ligand solution family.
A variety of nucleic acid primary, secondary and tertiary structures are known to exist. The structures or motifs that have been shown most commonly to be involved in non-Watson-Crick type interactions are referred to as hairpin loops, symmetric and asymmetric bulges, psuedoknots and myriad combinations of the same. Almost all known cases of such motifs suggest that they can be formed in a nucleic acid sequence of no more than 30 nucleotides. For this reason, it is often preferred that SELEX procedures with contiguous randomized segments be initiated with nucleic acid sequences containing a randomized segment of between about 20-50 nucleotides.
The SELEX Patent Applications also describe methods for obtaining nucleic acid ligands that bind to more than one site on the target molecule, and to nucleic acid ligands that include non-nucleic acid species that bind to specific sites on the target. The SELEX method provides means for isolating and identifying nucleic acid ligands which bind to any envisonable target. However, in preferred embodiments the SELEX method is applied to situations where the target is a protein, including both nucleic acid-binding proteins and proteins not known to bind nucleic acids as part of their biological function.
Little is known about RNA structure at high resolution. The basic A-form helical structure of double stranded RNA is known from fiber diffraction studies. X-ray crystallography has yielded the structure of a few tRNAs and a short poly-AU helix. The X-ray structure of a tRNA/synthetase RNA/protein complex has also been solved. The structures of two tetranucleotide hairpin loops and one model pseudoknot are know from NMR studies.
There are several reasons behind the paucity of structural data. Until the advent of in vitro RNA synthesis, it was difficult to isolate quantities of RNA sufficient for structural work. Until the discovery of catalytic RNAs, there were few RNA molecules considered worthy of structural study. Good tRNA crystals have been difficult to obtain, discouraging other crystal studies. The technology for NMR study of molecules of this size has only recently become available.
As described above, several examples of catalytic RNA structures are known, and the SELEX technology has been developed which selects RNAs that bind tightly to a variety of target molecules and may eventually be able to select for new catalytic RNA structures as well. It has become important to know the structure of these molecules, in order to learn how exactly they work, and to use this knowledge to improve upon them.
It would be desirable to understand enough about RNA folding to be able to predict the structure of an RNA with less effort than resorting to rigorous NMR, and X-ray crystal structure determination. For both proteins and RNAs, there has always been a desire to be able to compute structures based on sequences, and with limited (or no) experimental data.
Protein structure prediction is notoriously difficult. To a first approximation, the secondary structure and tertiary structure of proteins form cooperatively; protein folding can be approximated thermodynamically by a two-state model, with completely folded and completely unfolded states. This means that the number of degrees of freedom for modeling a protein structure are very large; without predictable intermediates, one cannot break the prediction problem into smaller, manageable sub problems. In contrast, RNAs often appear to make well-defined secondary structures which provide more stability than the tertiary interactions. For example, the tertiary structure of tRNA can be disrupted without disrupting the secondary structure by chelation of magnesium or by raising the temperature. Secondary structure prediction for RNAs is well-understood, and is generally quite accurate for small RNA molecules. For RNAs, structural prediction can be broken into subproblems; first, predict the secondary structure; then, predict how the resulting helices and remaining single strands are arranged relative to each other.
For RNA, the first attempts at structural prediction were for tRNAs. The secondary structure of the canonical tRNA cloverleaf was known from comparative sequence analysis, reducing the problem to one of arranging four short A-form helices in space relative to each other. Manual CPK modeling, back-of-the-envelope energy minimization, and a few distance restraints available from crosslinking studies and phylogenetic covariations were used to generate a tRNA model, which unfortunately proved wrong when the first crystal structure of phenylalanine tRNA was solved a few years later.
Computer modeling has supplanted manual modeling, relieving the model-builder of the difficulties imposed by gravitation and mass. Computer modeling can only be used without additional experimental data for instances in which a homologous structure is known; for instance, the structure of the 3′ end of the turnip yellow mosaic virus RNA genome was modeled, based on the known 3D structure of tRNA and the knowledge that the 3′ end of TYMV is recognized as tRNA-like by a number of cellular tRNA modification enzymes. This model was the first 3D model of an RNA pseudoknot; the basic structure of an isolated model pseudoknot has been corroborated by NMR data.
Computer modeling protocols have been used, restrained by the manual inspection of chemical and enzymatic protection data, to model the structures of several RNA molecules. In one isolated substructure, one model for the conformation of a GNRA tetranucleotide loop has been shown to be essentially correct by NMR study of an isolated GNRA hairpin loop.
Francois Michel, has constructed a model for the catalytic core of group I introns (Michel (1989) Nature 342:391). Like the tRNAs, the secondary structure of group I intron cores is well-known from comparative sequence analysis, so the problem is reduced to one of properly arranging helices and the remaining single-stranded regions. Michel analyzed an aligned set of 87 group I intron sequences by eye and detected seven strong pairwise and triplet covariations outside of the secondary structure, which he interpreted as tertiary contacts and manually incorporated as restraints on his model (Michel (1989) Nature 342:391). As yet, there is no independent confirmation of the Michel model.
Others have attempted to devise an automated procedure to deal with distance restraints from crosslinking, fluorescence transfer, or phylogentic co-variation. The RNA is treated as an assemblage of cylinders (A-form helices) and beads (single-stranded residues), and a mathematical technique called distance geometry is used to generate arrangements of these elements which are consistent with a set of distance restraints. Using a small set of seven distance restraints on the phenylalanine tRNA tertiary structure, this protocol generated the familiar L-form of the tRNA structure about ⅔ of the time.